Summary Based on the first 1000 characters of the PDF excerpt the likely title for the document is Moral Responsibility and Causal Determinism sites.nd.edu
1,288 words - PDF document - View PDF document
One Line
The paper explores the possibility of moral responsibility without the requirement of free will.
Slides
Slide Presentation (11 slides)
Key Points
- Moral responsibility is the attribute of an agent by which they must be held accountable for their actions
- Incompatibilist free will claims that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive
- John Martin Fischer argues that moral responsibility does not require incompatibilist free will, but rather responsiveness to reasons
- Moral responsibility can exist in a deterministic world, as long as the agent responds to reasons, even if they could not have done otherwise
- Determinism does not necessarily contradict moral responsibility, as humans are responsible for their choice to use their minds and for initiating future effects
Summaries
18 word summary
The paper questions if free will is necessary for moral responsibility, suggesting that it can exist without it.
54 word summary
This paper explores whether incompatibilist free will is necessary for moral responsibility, as argued by John Martin Fischer. It suggests that moral responsibility can exist without free will, as long as the action is reasons-responsive. Even in a deterministic world, individuals can still choose to act based on foreseeing the effect, maintaining moral responsibility.
155 word summary
This paper examines whether incompatibilist free will is necessary for moral responsibility, as proposed by John Martin Fischer. Fischer argues that moral responsibility does not require incompatibilist free will, as long as the mechanism issuing in the action is reasons-responsive. Even if moral responsibility does require free will, it does not necessarily follow that free will and a deterministic world-view are incompatible. Determinism posits that every event has a cause, but even if we are limited to a single action, we still must choose to commit it or not. Another way in which free will might exist in a determinist understanding of the world is through agents choosing to do something because they foresee the effect of that thing - and solely for that reason. Overall, regardless of the existence of incompatibilist free will, there is no less reason to believe in moral responsibility, because individuals are responsible as long as they respond to reasons.
254 word summary
Moral responsibility is the requirement for agents to be held accountable for their actions, often presumed to necessitate a faculty for perceiving morals. This paper explores whether incompatibilist free will is necessary for moral responsibility, as proposed by John Martin Fischer. Incompatibilist free will claims that humans can choose their actions without determinism dictating their choices, posing a challenge for assigning moral responsibility. However, Fischer argues that moral responsibility does not require incompatibilist free will, as long as the mechanism issuing in the action is reasons-responsive.
Even if Fischer's argument is flawed, and moral responsibility does require free will, it does not necessarily follow that free will and a deterministic world-view are incompatible. Determinism posits that every event has a cause, but even if we are limited to a single action, we still must choose to commit it or not. This suggests that determinism is not contradictory to responsibility, but rather necessitates it, as humans are responsible for their choice to use their minds.
Another way in which free will might exist in a determinist understanding of the world is through agents choosing to do something because they foresee the effect of that thing - and solely for that reason. This also demands that humans be responsible for their actions, as the outcome of their decisions holds them accountable to their choice of future. Overall, regardless of the existence of incompatibilist free will, there is no less reason to believe in moral responsibility, because individuals are responsible as long as they respond to reasons.
480 word summary
Moral responsibility is the attribute of an agent by which they must be held accountable for their actions. It is commonly presumed that moral responsibility requires an agent to have some faculty for perceiving morals, which typically means that the agent must be human. However, questions arise regarding the correlative requirements for moral responsibility. This paper aims to define incompatibilist free will and examine whether it is an attribute required for moral responsibility, using the ideas of John Martin Fischer.
Incompatibilist free will claims that human beings are free to choose their actions in a situation where there is no determinism dictating their choices. This presents a problem when trying to assign moral responsibility to humans. If free will does not exist, individuals seemingly have no control over their choices and thus no responsibility for them. On the other hand, if the world is not determined by causal relationships, then the "random events" that occur cannot be blamed on causing agents.
John Martin Fischer suggests that moral responsibility does not require incompatibilist free will. He argues that an agent can be held morally responsible for performing an action as long as the mechanism issuing in the action is reasons-responsive; the agent need not be free to do otherwise. This idea allows for determinism and moral responsibility to exist simultaneously, while still being coherent with reality. Fischer's definition makes moral responsibility a matter of the fact that the agent did something in response to something else. It does not matter whether the agent was free to do otherwise - what only matters is that they did what they were to do.
Even if Fischer's argument turned out to be faulty, and moral responsibility absolutely necessitates free will, it does not necessarily follow that free will and a deterministic world-view are incompatible. Determinism posits that every event has a cause, and many determinists argue that this is incompatible with free will. However, under close examination, it seems that even if we are limited to a single action, we still must choose to commit it or not. In this sense, determinism is not contradictory to responsibility, but rather necessitates it, because human beings are responsible for their choice to use their minds.
There is another way in which free will might exist in a determinist understanding of the world, and this form of free will also demands that humans be responsible for their actions. Agents may choose to do something because they foresee the effect of that thing - and solely for that reason. This necessitates a moral responsibility in the sense that the outcome of their decisions holds them accountable to their choice of future. Even if theories of incompatibilist free will turn out to be false representations of our reality, there is no less reason to believe in moral responsibility, because individuals are responsible so long as they respond to reasons.